Back
1995 Supreme(All) 700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P. K. Mukherjee, J.
HARI PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE - Respondents
C. M. W. P 2253 Of 1987
Decided On : 07/14/1995
B.P.SRIVASTAVA
Denial of opportunity to engage a legal assistant during a departmental enquiry violates the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - RIGHT TO LEGAL ASSISTANCE - DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE LEGAL ASSISTANT - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RE-EXAMINATION OF MATTER ORDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent class IV employee in Banda Judgeship, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry. He alleged that he was denied the opportunity to engage a legal assistant during the enquiry, which violated his right to natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to engage a legal assistant during the departmental enquiry, which was a violation of his right to natural justice. The court also found that the affidavit filed by the Senior Administrative Officer, Banda Judgeship, contained false information, and directed the District Judge, Banda, to make an adverse entry in his character roll.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of opportunity to engage a legal assistant during a departmental enquiry violates the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the false affidavit filed by the Senior Administrative Officer, Banda Judgeship, warrants disciplinary action?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles of natural justice and the judgments of the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court to hold that the denial of opportunity to engage a legal assistant during a departmental enquiry violates the principles of natural justice. 2. The court held that the false affidavit filed by the Senior Administrative Officer, Banda Judgeship, was a serious offence and directed the District Judge, Banda, to take appropriate disciplinary action.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part, quashed the orders of dismissal from service and directed the Enquiry Officer to re-examine the matter and complete the enquiry within three months. The petitioner was to be treated as under suspension during this period and paid subsistence allowance.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated August 5, 1986, passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner, by two Hpnble Judges of this Court, on administrative side, and order of dismissal from service dated September 25, 1984.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner was a permanent class IV employee in Banda Judgeship. He was in employment since 1959. Petitioner was transferred from "banda to Karvi in 1981, Since petitioner was an active member of the Staff Union, according to the petitioner, the officers of banda Judgeship were prejudiced against him. He was charge sheeted, and proceeded with departmental enquiry. During the course of departmental enquiry, petitioner moved an application dated October 14, 1982, praying for an Advocate to assist him. No order was passed on the aforesaid application and on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated September 25, 1984. Appeal preferred against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Court.
( 3 ) THIS case was heard on May 17, 1995 and, on being satisfied that Sri. Ram Sajivan Singh senior Administrative Officer in the office of District Judge, Banda had affirmed false affidavit, this court passed the following orders: "sri Ram Sajivan Singh, Senior Administrative Officer, Office of District Judge Banda, who has affirmed an affidavit in this case on February 20, 1990, has stated in paragraph 14 as under:
". . . . . . that there was no application dated October 14, 1982 on the record whereunder the petitioner alleged to have made request for permitting him to take assistance of some legal practitioner nor this fact has been mentioned by the enquiry officer in his enquiry proceedings. " the petitioner has produced the carbon copy of aforesaid application dated October 14, 1982 wherein seal of office of District Judge is affixed and signature in token of receipt is there. The application is being kept on record. Thus, prima facie, in view of aforesaid application which has been retained in record, it is clear that aforesaid Sri Ram Sajivan Singh has made false statement before this Court. The enquiry officer has also not filed any independent affidavit in this case. In the aforesaid circumstances, Sri Ram Sajivan Singh, Senior Administrative Officer in the office of District Judge, Banda, as well as the enquiry officer are directed to remain present at 10. A. M. on July 14, 1995 before this Court with all necessary records, and apprise this court as to whether any such application had been filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
( 4 ) TODAY, in compliance of the aforesaid direction, Sri Ram Sajivan Singh, Senior administrative Officer Banda, Judgeships; Shri Ashok Kumar, Special Judge, Allahabad and the standing counsel are present. According to Sri Ashok Kumar, Special Judge, Allahabad, he was posted as Addl. District Judge, Karvi from July 16, 1983 to June 30, 1985. He had submitted his report regarding petitioner on August 31, 1984 and no application dated October 14, 1982 was ever moved before him. So far as Sri Ram Sajivan Singh is concerned, I am afraid, he could not offer any satisfactory explanation to justify his conduct. Thus, this fact is admitted that Sri ram-Sajivan Singh has misled this court by filing a wrong counter affidavit, containing incorrect facts. He has committed a very serious offence. Since he is attached to the office of District judge, Banda, the District Judge, Banda, is directed to make an adverse entry in his character roll to this effect, and warn him that he will be careful in future.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order passed by Honble Mr. A. Banerjee, J and Honble Mr. R. A. Misra J, dated August 5, 1986 as their Lordships there, were rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. This order is passed on administrative side. The prevailing practice in Allahabad High Court is that when an appeal of this nature is filed by an em
